An interesting Gallup poll

[Care4all]

In short, he has shown himself to be a very good candidate.

How?

Where has his votes in the Senate shown such? Where has his actual actions shown such, other than being a fantastic orator which is a far improvement over Bush, but what about his actual, real life stances and actions...

Where has he shown this leadership needed to run our country? I just don't see it....????

What does he stand for in his actions, not just his words....words are nothing to me and to many voters...

And I AM NOT supporting Mccain, that;s for certain, because his actions have shown who he really is....

care

 

[ReillyT]

Who sees Clinton as polarizing? Among voters, it seems mainly Obama supporters hold that view.

Another interesting poll shows that:


Kind of surprising that a candidate who preaches unity isn't seen as THE unifying candidate.



http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...idate_most_likely_to_reach_across_party_lines

By and large, independents and Republicans see Clinton as a polarizing figure. To some extent, this can be seen from Clinton's favorable/unfavorable ratings. A large turnout in these groups against Clinton could have a detrimental effect on the ability of the Democrats to regain the White House.

Seeking to be a unifying figure does not necessarily mean that one is capable of unifying at point in time A. Both Clinton and Obama have some hills to climb in this regard. Whether either or neither will be able to do so is something that only time and/or conjecture will tell.

 

[ReillyT]

How?

Where has his votes in the Senate shown such? Where has his actual actions shown such, other than being a fantastic orator which is a far improvement over Bush, but what about his actual, real life stances and actions...

Where has he shown this leadership needed to run our country? I just don't see it....????

What does he stand for in his actions, not just his words....words are nothing to me and to many voters...

And I AM NOT supporting Mccain, that;s for certain, because his actions have shown who he really is....

care

Whatever you may think of his record personally, he has shown himself to be a good candidate through his performance in the primaries. He started at a significant disadvantage to Clinton 12 months ago, but has managed to best her by most objective metrics (including significantly, in his fundraising). Even were he to lose the nomination, he and his team have still done a masterful job on the campaign trail.

 

[Ravi]

By and large, independents and Republicans see Clinton as a polarizing figure.

I don't think so.

When pitted against McCain, Clinton now wins among independents, 50 percent to 34 percent, when just a few weeks ago she ran about even with him with this crucial group of voters. Clinton also now does better among independents than Obama does in a matchup with McCain.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/associated_press_poll_hillary.php

 

[Ravi]

Whatever you may think of his record personally, he has shown himself to be a good candidate through his performance in the primaries. He started at a significant disadvantage to Clinton 12 months ago, but has managed to best her by most objective metrics (including significantly, in his fundraising). Even were he to lose the nomination, he and his team have still done a masterful job on the campaign trail.

Again, I don't think so. At the beginning of the primary season he was running roughly the same against Clinton. His performance against her hasn't improved while hers against McCain's has.

 

[manifold]

Honestly, I don't see it. Exploiting someone's race is the definition of racist.

You're really reaching now. It's so pathetic I'm almost tempted to just let it slide...almost.


Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination


Playing the race card certainly does not mean the same thing as exhibiting racism. There may be a high correlation (See: Al Sharpton) but I know you're smart enough to know that one can play the race card without being guilty of racism. So why don't you save a little face and just admit that you were FOS when you claimed that you only take me literally, since everyone and his brother already knows that's a complete fabrication.

 

[ReillyT]

I don't think so.



http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/associated_press_poll_hillary.php

Guess that depends on the poll.

May 14, 2008 - Obama, Clinton Both Top McCain In November Face-Off, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Most Democrats Back Obama-Clinton 'dream Ticket'

In an Obama-McCain matchup, independent voters back the Democrat 48 - 37 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Men split with 45 percent for McCain and 44 percent for Obama, while women back Obama 49 - 36 percent. McCain leads 47 - 40 percent among white voters, while blacks back Obama 87 - 4 percent.

In a Clinton-McCain contest, independent voters split with 41 - 41 percent. Men go with McCain 46 - 42 percent while women back Clinton 51 - 36 percent. White voters back McCain 48 - 41 percent, the same margin as the Obama-McCain matchup, while black voters back Clinton 79 - 8 percent.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1177

 

[ReillyT]

Again, I don't think so. At the beginning of the primary season he was running roughly the same against Clinton. His performance against her hasn't improved while hers against McCain's has.

At the beginning of the primary season, Obama was trailing Clinton by a very large margin almost everywhere except Illinois. He has performed very well to the point that he is now poised to claim the nomination. I don't see how one could possible say other than that he has run a very good campaign.

 

[Ravi]

You're really reaching now. It's so pathetic I'm almost tempted to just let it slide...almost.


Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination


Playing the race card certainly does not mean the same thing as exhibiting racism. There may be a high correlation (See: Al Sharpton) but I know you're smart enough to know that one can play the race card without being guilty of racism. So why don't you save a little face and just admit that you were FOS when you claimed that you only take me literally, since everyone and his brother already knows that's a complete fabrication.

Alright, alright, the literal part was me being FOS. But I disagree with you on the race card bit. Playing the race card by appealing to racist tendencies in your audience is exploiting race and therefore racist.

 

[Ravi]

At the beginning of the primary season, Obama was trailing Clinton by a very large margin almost everywhere except Illinois. He has performed very well to the point that he is now poised to claim the nomination. I don't see how one could possible say other than that he has run a very good campaign.

Well it's moot anyway. He's already claimed it.

But I do disagree, you are probably right about what was going on before the primary but almost immediately it became a close race and has continued that way between Obama and Clinton.

 

[Jon]

At the beginning of the primary season, Obama was trailing Clinton by a very large margin almost everywhere except Illinois. He has performed very well to the point that he is now poised to claim the nomination. I don't see how one could possible say other than that he has run a very good campaign.

It's funny, everyday he continues to build this amazing momentum, and everyday, Clinton continues to win primaries in spite of that. They've both run amazing campaigns. If they hadn't, one of them would have won by now.

 

[manifold]

Alright, alright, the literal part was me being FOS. But I disagree with you on the race card bit. Playing the race card by appealing to racist tendencies in your audience is exploiting race and therefore racist.

I don't think she was appealing to racist tendencies. I think she was trying to fill the undecided superdelegates with an irrational fear that racist sentiment makes Obama less electable so they should wise up and vote for her. That doesn't mean she is racially prejudicial or discriminatory, or that she believes in the superiority of one race vs another. Consider evangelists for a moment, they exploit the shit out of honest Christians, but that hardly makes them honest Christians themselves now does it?

 

[Care4all]

At the beginning of the primary season, Obama was trailing Clinton by a very large margin almost everywhere except Illinois. He has performed very well to the point that he is now poised to claim the nomination. I don't see how one could possible say other than that he has run a very good campaign.

He has lost ground with voters in the primary since the Feb 5 super tuesday date and Hillary has been improving....

but just an example of the Internet Democrat Media throwing Hillary out with the bath water starting January 30 or earlier.....all of the Democratic bloggers have been smearing her and her case since she put her name in the race...

Jan. 30, 2008 | Florida Democrats wrote two conflicting story lines in Tuesday's primary. In Narrative I, a sunshiny Hillary Clinton needed only 72 hours to recover from her death-bed scene in the South Carolina primary, defeating Barack Obama by 17 percentage points in Florida. In Narrative II, a desperate Clinton, trying to clamber out of political quicksand, loudly proclaimed victory in a meaningless Florida beauty contest that will not earn her any delegates.

For those who adore semantic riddles, for those whose idea of fun is staging dramatic readings of the Democratic Party rules, we face the curious question, When is a primary not a primary? The answer: When the Democratic National Committee refuses to recognize the result.

What is wrong with this statement and article on Salon.com and what the Obama followers hopped on to without ever really doing any research or reading the Demnocratic rules on the subject.

It was never in the rules that these states would lose all of their delegates in their primaries for running an early primary. What was in the rules is that they could lose half of their delegates with the right to contest such right prior to the convention or right at the convention...( I will have to relook it up)

BECAUSE this was never mentioned by ANY OF THE MEDIA, on the internet or in the Press, Hillary has always looked like a whiner saying their votes would count and Hillary has looked like she was trailing obama MORE THAN SHE ACTUALLY WAS..... thus giving her less of an opportunity to get the traction on campaign funds, because quite frankly, NO ONE wants to support a loser, and EVERYONE PLAYED HER AS A LOSER, when in reality she was just slightly trailing if trailing at all during this whole time that no one mentioned that florida would count for at least half and that on May 31 according to the rules, this will take place.

INSTEAD, the obamaites and their owned lock stock and barrel media, kept this imprtant factor of the votes counting at least by half in those states from the public's knowledge and playing hillary as a person who is TRYING TO CHANGE THE RULES, which she was NOT.

Look at this and apply logic:

DNC RULES:

C. 1. a. Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by
fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state’s delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.

b. A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state’s government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state. Candidates may, however, campaign in such a state after the primary or caucus that violates these rules. “Campaigning” for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state. The Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are covered by this section.

Now tell me that you think that the rules would state that the Candidate that campaigns there would LOSE THEIR DELEGATES from THOSE STATES, if the delegates of those states were not going to eventually COUNT?

Can you see where I am coming from...the sanctions put upon Candidates for breaking the DNC rules on this would NOT BE NECESSARY OR WORTH A DAMN if the delegates WERE NEVER GOING TO COUNT?????

People are making Hillary to be the sourpuss on this and it is HILLARY that HAS taken the proper position on this all along, ACCORDING TO THE RULES.

Care

 

[ReillyT]

It's funny, everyday he continues to build this amazing momentum, and everyday, Clinton continues to win primaries in spite of that. They've both run amazing campaigns. If they hadn't, one of them would have won by now.

He hasn't built great momentum, but he has run a very good campaign, especially by focusing on caucus states where he could get large delegate totals through sheer organizational detail and attention. Clinton has not run a great campaign, although it has been better of late. She started out with strong advantages, and if she had paid as much attention to the caucus states and red states as she did to California, she would be ahead in the delegate count right now. She is a good candidate, but her campaign misfired badly at the start.

 

[ReillyT]

He has lost ground with voters in the primary since the Feb 5 super tuesday date and Hillary has been improving....

but just an example of the Internet Democrat Media throwing Hillary out with the bath water starting January 30 or earlier.....all of the Democratic bloggers have been smearing her and her case since she put her name in the race...


What is wrong with this statement and article on Salon.com and what the Obama followers hopped on to without ever really doing any research or reading the Demnocratic rules on the subject.

It was never in the rules that these states would lose all of their delegates in their primaries for running an early primary. What was in the rules is that they could lose half of their delegates with the right to contest such right prior to the convention or right at the convention...( I will have to relook it up)

BECAUSE this was never mentioned by ANY OF THE MEDIA, on the internet or in the Press, Hillary has always looked like a whiner saying their votes would count and Hillary has looked like she was trailing obama MORE THAN SHE ACTUALLY WAS..... thus giving her less of an opportunity to get the traction on campaign funds, because quite frankly, NO ONE wants to support a loser, and EVERYONE PLAYED HER AS A LOSER, when in reality she was just slightly trailing if trailing at all during this whole time that no one mentioned that florida would count for at least half and that on May 31 according to the rules, this will take place.

INSTEAD, the obamaites and their owned lock stock and barrel media, kept this imprtant factor of the votes counting at least by half in those states from the public's knowledge and playing hillary as a person who is TRYING TO CHANGE THE RULES, which she was NOT.

Look at this and apply logic:

DNC RULES:



Now tell me that you think that the rules would state that the Candidate that campaigns there would LOSE THEIR DELEGATES from THOSE STATES, if the delegates of those states were not going to eventually COUNT?

Can you see where I am coming from...the sanctions put upon Candidates for breaking the DNC rules on this would NOT BE NECESSARY OR WORTH A DAMN if the delegates WERE NEVER GOING TO COUNT?????

People are making Hillary to be the sourpuss on this and it is HILLARY that HAS taken the proper position on this all along, ACCORDING TO THE RULES.

Care

The DNC voted in August that Florida would be stripped of all of its delegates. The rules only indicate that it must be stripped of at least 50% of the delegates, but the DNC went further. Of course, the DNC could reverse its earlier decision and still be within its own rules by stripping 50%, which is probably what it will do.

The Democratic National Committee, threatening to take the toughest line possible, voted Saturday to refuse to seat any Florida Democrat at the Democratic presidential convention in 2008 if the state party did not delay the date of its 2008 primary to conform to the party’s nominating calendar.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/us/politics/26calendar.html?_r=1&fta=y&oref=slogin

 

[Jon]

Clinton won states that mattered. California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, Arkansas...and she's ahead of John McCain in all of these states. Obama won states that the Democrats have no chance of carrying in the fall. Why pay attention to the red states more than states that are going to matter in the general election? But let's be honest, by red states you mean southern states. And we know why Obama won the southern states, it had nothing to do with Clinton not paying them enough attention.

Clinton never would have won a caucus state. Obama carried the youth vote all along, and when you have a bunch of braindead hippy kids that don't have jobs and can stay up into all hours of the night, you're going to win caucuses.

He hasn't built great momentum? Do you not see the 80,000 people gathering at his rallies? How is that not great momentum? Clinton can't even get half that number at a rally, yet she's still getting enough votes to keep him from clinching this nomination. Obviously, there's some unseen force keeping her in the race. They don't seem to be Clinton supporters, but they definitely aren't Obama supporters.

I don't think her campaign misfired. I think her campaign underestimated Obama's campaign.

 

[manifold]

Clinton won states that mattered.

Newsflash: They all count, therefore they all matter. And your darling hero Hillary has lost her bid for the nomination. It's high time you come to grips with it.

 

[Ravi]

I don't think she was appealing to racist tendencies. I think she was trying to fill the undecided superdelegates with an irrational fear that racist sentiment makes Obama less electable so they should wise up and vote for her. That doesn't mean she is racially prejudicial or discriminatory, or that she believes in the superiority of one race vs another. Consider evangelists for a moment, they exploit the shit out of honest Christians, but that hardly makes them honest Christians themselves now does it?

I disagree. If that was what she did she'd be a racist.

 

[manifold]

I disagree. If that was what she did she'd be a racist.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.

I guess that also means you think exploitative evangalists are honest Christians too then.

 

[Ravi]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.

I guess that also means you think exploitative evangalists are honest Christians too then.

That doesn't even make sense. A bad analogy on your part.